Roundup

Post #984 • April 6, 2007, 11:33 AM • 55 Comments

For all the times I've busted on Holland Cotter, he just did a lovely review of the show of Buddhist art at the Japan Society. It's time to get down to New York again, between that, the new Greek and Roman galleries chez Met, George Stubbs at the Frick, and the Durand show at the Brooklyn Museum called Kindred Spirits. Press materials from the Brooklyn Museum didn't mention anything about, you know, that Kindred Spirits, but the release was entitled Durand Durand, in an apparent attempt to draw people into the show with gauzy recollections of men wearing mascara. (Personally, I was listening to Rush at the time.)

The U.S. tax system accords unequal treatment to creators and collectors who donate tangible works (e.g., paintings or manuscripts) to museums, libraries, educational or other collecting institutions. A collector may take a tax deduction for the fair-market value of the work, but creators may deduct only their basis value—essentially the cost of materials such as paint and canvas. We urge Members of Congress to co-sponsor bipartisan legislation, S. 548 or H.R.1524, which would allow artists to take a fair-market value deduction for works given to and retained by nonprofit institutions. (Necee)

Missed Connection Comics. (Waxy) While Craigslist offers a variety of public services from apartments to one night flings, the Missed Connection ads offers a tender insight into a world of people who run around the city making eye contact with strangers and falling instantly and madly in love. And what better way to pay homage to such unrequited love than to exploit it in a comic book?

Say, Franklin, can we rename the blog "Derision and Contempt"? Those things are eminently legitimate when deserved, but also, I like the sound of it. You know, the D & C blog. Catchy, no?

7.

Rene Barge

April 6, 2007, 4:48 PM

Spearing?
Guess my arrows aren't blunt enough.

8.

Rene Barge

April 6, 2007, 5:22 PM

Thanks for Golden Cage. That was lovely!

9.

opie

April 6, 2007, 5:25 PM

The "spearing" quote comes from AT. I'm not sure everyone understands that. Maybe the quotes should be attributed. Then no "sic" is needed.

10.

Rene Barge

April 6, 2007, 5:46 PM

Got it Opie! I do recall.
I also recall Audience #17, AT: "We don't eschew any topic from our discussions and you and your friends are more than welcome to pitch in." I had no idea that my pitch turned out a spear.
What I do not understand is the whole "boy" thing. Do you think its a matter of custom or is it defensive?

11.

redneckrailroad

April 6, 2007, 6:00 PM

Artblog.net:FOR US, BY US!

or

Artblog.net: We're so sure we're right, that anything to the contrary must be the product of sheeple, and those afraid to hear the truth!
or

Artblog.net: Don't bother to see ourside, we don't bother to see yours!
or

JM, AT was trying to say "spare me of" which should have been "spare me from", but instead he said "spear me of", hence Franklin's pointed (so to speak) coupling of the quote with the detail from Raphael's "St George & the Dragon"

I like the last one, Redneck. Do more.

14.

ahab

April 6, 2007, 7:53 PM

So I'm wasting Good Friday away by keeping the laptop tuned to a couple blogs watching pointed comments get lobbed back and forth. Like World War One soldiers who could tell what kind of shell was going to land and how close just by the sound it made whistling through the air, I'm beginning to get a sense for different kinds of commentors and their comments.

Some prefer to exclusively infer tone, ignore actual meaning, and respond with heightened sensitivity to insults merely imagined. Others read with strictly literal interpretation unaware of poeticism, puns or double entendres, which locks them out of the fun of the engagement. The boringest comments are playground taunts that land as anticlimactically as unexploded duds in noman's land. But the worst are those commentors who bluff their way into the fray unworthily claiming authority or superiority, but burying readers alive in slung mud.

The commentors I respect most are those who can both read and write with sensitivity and precision, empathy and intelligence, all the while intolerant of wilful misreading and misinformation. At least the bloggefield has no real casualties; though, as with shell warfare, each person in the trench has a unique threshold for surviving the concussive barrage. Some, like me, come away gibbering wrecks.

15.

redneckrailroad

April 6, 2007, 8:21 PM

artblog.net: modern as fuck

artblog.net: extra smug, hold the pomo

artblog.net: little jive, lotta jibes

16.

catfish

April 6, 2007, 9:25 PM

artblog.net: extra sumg, hold the pomo

Funny enough. How about ...

artblog.net: in you heart you know we're right.

17.

catfish

April 6, 2007, 9:27 PM

sorry for the lame post above. nutin I can do about it now ...

18.

Jack

April 6, 2007, 9:56 PM

So redneck, given your evident disapproval, not to say disdain, why even bother with Artblog? What motivates you? I mean, you can certainly do it if it suits you, but I personally wouldn't invest time or effort in visiting some "Pomo" blog (for instance) and trying to make its denizens "see the light." They have eyes and a brain just as I do, so their consciousness or lack thereof is their business.

What is my business is to see and think and judge for myself, stand my ground no matter what anybody says, and not give a damn about how "with-it" or popular or correct my position may or may not be. I'm not in this to please anybody but me.

Again, suit yourself, but seems to me your time could be better spent. Actually, to a certain extent, I sometimes feel like saying the same thing to Franklin.

19.

jm

April 6, 2007, 10:36 PM

Opie, I painted St. George and the Dragon for a commission requested by some New York club owner friends. However, I derived it from Rapheal.
I was considered to be a Redneck then and ...

20.

Jack

April 7, 2007, 4:27 PM

Franklin, I suggest you let it go. It's neither useful nor worth the bother. Unless you enjoy argument for its own sake, you're pretty much wasting your time on something that doesn't deserve such consideration. It's not even as if you were taking on heavy-duty opposition, just small-time Miami local stuff. Yes, it's a reflection of the big picture, but save your guns for battles of greater import.

21.

Franklin

April 7, 2007, 5:30 PM

It's okay, Jack. I'm laid up with a cold and this suits my energy level at the moment.

22.

jm

April 7, 2007, 6:20 PM

My last comment was a joke.

On NPR.org there is an interesting interview with Art Historian Simon Shama about his book The Power of Art in which he states that great art acts like a thug .

Well, the "Real Truth" may have a point about internet porn, but as for 'disgruntled'; no, sorry, it just doesn't apply. I suppose I can't speak for all the regulars, but I'm actually quite good humoured and contented , thank you very much.

28.

pOrn

April 8, 2007, 3:34 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZGw9NGEm20

29.

what is going on ?

April 8, 2007, 3:53 AM

This appears to be the basis of our existence.

Metaphor:
Homo-sapiens where once the seed (cum) which entered the cave of mother earth in order to plant themselves within it's walls with images that embodied spirits of what they belonged to. The seed appears to be represented as human/animal effigies pictorially. As they embedded themselves (and what they knew about life) into the walls of the vaginal cave, new life outside the cave would grow again. An indoctrinated religious person, or theist would claim that we are now 'more advanced' from this and thus better than nature.
They were replenishing the mysterious repetition of what was whole, one, and complete - eternal existence; thereby keeping in "accord with the universal rhythm". (Campbell)
Today, we have been taught to call this notion of cave entry and wall planting as 'fucking' , as we have been taught that we are separate from nature.

I've allways enjoyed the Fiddler on the Roof as well.

30.

opie

April 8, 2007, 8:08 AM

Joseph Campbell is a windbag.

31.

Franklin

April 8, 2007, 8:15 AM

They have porn on the internet?

32.

Jack

April 8, 2007, 9:16 AM

I'm quite shocked myself, Franklin. Who knew?

33.

Marc Country

April 8, 2007, 12:35 PM

It's listed under "P", I think...

34.

Jack

April 8, 2007, 1:26 PM

Well, I suppose I can now ditch the overcoat and dark glasses and stop making trips to those XXX video stores late at night. Saves on gas, too.

35.

redneckrailroad

April 8, 2007, 8:59 PM

F~

i see you liked one.
cool.

Jack~
You know, i rarely stop by this place.And it's not that I disapprove, quite the contrary.I support strong opinions and unilateral thinking.

I just disagree with the views expressed by you regulars here, not because they're out of fashion or un-current, but because you put yourselves put in some fictitious romantic struggle against "the pomo world", whatever that is.
I find this place obtuse, unfriendly, and for the most part short sighted. Despite that I occasionaly learn a thing or two, agree with a thing or two, and shake my head in disbelief more often than not.

modern as fuck indeed,

36.

opie

April 8, 2007, 10:31 PM

Redneck, when you say "I just disagree with the views expressed by you regulars here, not because they're out of fashion or un-current, but because you put yourselves put in some fictitious romantic struggle against "the pomo world", whatever that is." you are not saying you disagree, because you are not disagreeing but expressing a dislike of a style of commenting.

Disagreement is something else, something that you and others like you don't do. Instead you characterize, categorize, give motives, express dispeasure with other's attitudes, evade direct discussion of specifics, get huffy, call names and so forth.

I am beginning to realize that there are two kinds of comment-makers. Each has its own characteristics and each is utterly and obviously disctinct, like the proverbial apples and oranges.

37.

Jack

April 8, 2007, 10:33 PM

Well, redneck, if that's your take, so be it. What the regulars here are generally against is not, in my opinion, best characterized as "the Pomo world," which is both too vague and too specific a term. Rather, we are generally against the current, official, predominant art establishment, which is definitely no fantasy. "Unreal" or surreal, perhaps, but we're not making it up. Your perception of it, of course, may well be quite different from ours, but that's another matter.

I don't know about others here, but I don't feel especially "romantic." Mostly I'm irritated, frustrated and really fed up with BS, which is ubiquitous (again, I realize that's not the majority view). I'm sick and tired of getting so little (if any) return on my investment of time and effort when it comes to going out there looking for art. If you're content with the scene, obviously you won't relate to my position.

I'm puzzled by your use of "obtuse," because we make ourselves pretty clear, whatever you may think of what we think. Unfriendly? Well, we don't play nice with what we don't believe in or respect; we don't do PC-speak, and we're not too good at turning the other cheek. As for "shortsighted," you may be put off by the fact we're fairly focused, strongly opinionated, firmly visually oriented, absolutely adamant about quality, and certainly not in tune with mindless relativism or the "everything goes" school. If everything truly went (i.e., worked), there would be no problem.

38.

Katie

April 8, 2007, 11:41 PM

Is "modern as fuck" Artblog's new catchphrase then? Has a certain charm, and more oomph than the carpet swatches it replaced.

39.

opie

April 9, 2007, 9:29 AM

Katie: Franklin posted that tongue-in-cheek as a typical asinine comment (originated by Redneck, as I recall), and now Redneck seems to be proudly repeating it. Go figure.

Except that I feel rather more emphatically about it than a mere all-caps verb period sentence will connote. I feel so strongly about his windbaggery, that I am inclined to chacacterize it and express my displeasure with a few choice words. Moreover, I'd enjoy going so far as to assign motives to Campbell's windbaggery. I may one day categorize Campbell as a Grade-A Windbag, but perhaps not today, as the investigation of degrees of windbaggery seems too large a project for my patience with the subject.

For all of you who may wonder why I feel so strongly that Campbell is a windbag, well, you know.

Anyway, Campbell: pah!

41.

opie

April 9, 2007, 10:33 AM

I see no reason not to elevate him to grade-A status, KH. He is a superb example of the type: high-falutin, pseudointellectual, stuffed with unspecifiable generalization, insistently referring to "underlying profundity", perfect for the PBS/college sophomore sort of upper-middlebrow hold-reality-at-a-distance culture vulture fodder. This is no ordinary windbag. He is definitely grade-A.

42.

Marc Country

April 9, 2007, 11:49 AM

I don't really know anything about Campbell, other than the video link JM provided. It seemed fine to me (and quite enjoyed his quoting of Schopenhauer at the end).

I suppose I just assume everyone who studies 'comparative mythology' talks like that. I suppose the whole field is 'pseudo-intellectual', in a way, so, can it be discussed WITHOUT sounding like a 'windbag', I wonder...

43.

opie

April 9, 2007, 12:34 PM

Listen to that end part again, Marc, and see if it really makes sense, whether the sentences, the subjects and predicates and the things he says are happening and their presumed causes make sense.

None of the things I really like on Youtube ever get 5 stars.

44.

Marc Country

April 9, 2007, 1:58 PM

Ok, I watched it again.

If you mean that it isn't exactly true, that you rush to save your wife from falling off a cliff BECAUSE you somehow "wake up" and metaphysically "get it" that you and she are "one", then I agree. (Harry Frankfurt does a nice logical examination of the reasons for such selfless expressions in his "The Reasons of Love", which is surely more accurate, if a little less poetic than the way Schopenhauer tackles the idea, as explained by Campbell here).

Whether, on a deeper level, altruism is truly an expression of the wonder and oneness of all things in the universe, I can't say with certainty, but I'm nonetheless glad that somebody else feels they can.

45.

opie

April 9, 2007, 4:38 PM

There were also a few nonsense statements at the end there also, but what the hell. You are more forgiving than I am, which isn't a bad thing at all.

46.

ahab

April 9, 2007, 9:13 PM

For some reason I could only get the first minute or two of any Youtube video to play, but it only took that long for me to tire of Campbell's gnostic sermon. The mystery of why humans rely on the myths they do cannot be so simplistically explained because, even more basically, we've got myths of our own that necessarily tint the ways we see these others.

A not-so loose paraphrase of Campbell in his Sakhavati: "The lion is the sun, which has its opposite in the moon, the crescent shape of which is like the slithering snake's and which is symbolized by the bull's curling horns, which like the moon has to die in order to live again." Cack. Pure cack that debunks itself. How he gets away with isn't a mystery - people want to believe in something that's always been true. Anything espoused as "primal" fits the bill, all the more so if affirmed with "learned" language.

47.

Marc Country

April 9, 2007, 9:39 PM

Gosh you guys are critical!
Me, I suppose I just never metaphor I didn't like.
ba dum bum.